I understood kylemeister to be saying that White must be happy with the 0-0 line in the Sozin (recommended by Amanov and Kavutskiy) in order to play 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 against the Najdorf, because Black can transpose into that Sozin line - not that White can force the transposition even if Black doesn't want it.

"Modernized: The Open Sicilian" advocated the Sozin against the Classical, with the old short-castling main line. One thing to note is that if White is happy with that, he can play 7. 0-0 instead of 7. Bb3 in the Najdorf version (still allowing the ...b5 line, but devaluing ...Nbd7, which is perhaps more challenging).

I'm grateful to kylemeister for that suggestion, as I have the book and don't have much confidence in the recommendation of 6.h3 against the Najdorf. 6.Bc4 looks much more fun, especially if it can transpose into a line that Amanov and Kavutskiy do recommend.

In the Classical, the book's recommendation after 6.Bc4 Qb6 7.Nb3 e6 is 8.Bf4. GM Kosten, in his (excellent!) ebook, says that this move "became popular after being recommended in one of the Beating the Sicilian books". This puzzles me, since all three editions of that book recommend the Rauzer, not the Sozin. Is there a transposition to this position from some other variation, or was GM Kosten just misremembering?

I don't understand. I fblack plays 5.-a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 b5 8.Bb3 Be7 I see no way for white to transpose to the lines of "Modernized: The Open Sicilian".

"Modernized: The Open Sicilian" advocated the Sozin against the Classical, with the old short-castling main line. One thing to note is that if White is happy with that, he can play 7. 0-0 instead of 7. Bb3 in the Najdorf version (still allowing the ...b5 line, but devaluing ...Nbd7, which is perhaps more challenging).

I'm grateful to kylemeister for that suggestion, as I have the book and don't have much confidence in the recommendation of 6.h3 against the Najdorf. 6.Bc4 looks much more fun, especially if it can transpose into a line that Amanov and Kavutskiy do recommend.

In the Classical, the book's recommendation after 6.Bc4 Qb6 7.Nb3 e6 is 8.Bf4. GM Kosten, in his (excellent!) ebook, says that this move "became popular after being recommended in one of the Beating the Sicilian books". This puzzles me, since all three editions of that book recommend the Rauzer, not the Sozin. Is there a transposition to this position from some other variation, or was GM Kosten just misremembering?

Funny, i was thinking about this just yesterday. When i was playing regularly back in the 90's, i regularly faced Fischer-Sozin lines, and it had been used around that time by some of the top GMs such as Short and Polgar i think.

I no longer play the sicilian, but its not a line that i see on other boards, or in the few GM games i read. Other than the book mentioned above, and the one by Gary Lane I'm not sure it is covered much for white.

Is this just a victim of fashion or has theory rendered it toothless now?

"Modernized: The Open Sicilian" advocated the Sozin against the Classical, with the old short-castling main line. One thing to note is that if White is happy with that, he can play 7. 0-0 instead of 7. Bb3 in the Najdorf version (still allowing the ...b5 line, but devaluing ...Nbd7, which is perhaps more challenging).